It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 572
377
<< 569  570  571    573  574  575 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
John_Knoll


You have no idea who John Knoll is.



I didn't mention his part in photoshop, so, in your logic, I don't know who John Kroll is. Unfortunately your logic contains an assumptive error which results in the error of your declarative summation : "You have no idea who John Knoll is."

Space.com evidently found his inclusion in next Thursday's NASA [2pm EST] conference " -- oddly -- ". In this I agree fully with space.com.

It's the same kind of -- oddly -- when Nixon nominates Shakespeare for USIA. It's the same kind of -- oddly -- when Cronkite is scouting Goldstone. It's the same kind of -- oddly -- when no human being has ever travelled the Van Allen Belts, except when Nixon was already president-elect in 1968 through the termination of his presidency by voluntary resignation in 1974...

Basically John Knoll is so good at what he does (creating visual illusions for Hollywood) that NASA recruited him for a space conference on Thursday. I'm looking forward to finding out what manner of involvement John Knoll will be play in the announcement.
edit on 9/14/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: facts straight




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Basically John Knoll is so good at what he does (creating visual illusions for Hollywood) that NASA recruited him for a space conference on Thursday.


You've presented the very basics of John's career and qualifications in a shoe box because it fits a conclusion you would like to present. My assumptive 'error' is absolutely correct in this regard.

John Knoll is much more than that. The person's movie work is more well known by lay persons and that's the 'identity' assigned by yourself to this person, but that doesn't make it correct. We won't know exactly what will be said till it's released, but image analysis and image professionals and the movie industry oddly enough all go hand in hand.

Oddly enough, the high pass operator, Fourier transforms and all the rest that all these industries use all use the same maths. The same way architects work with builders ... the weight you're applying here is way off base.

It's just the usual shot in the dark casual logic that pervades this thread.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. This thread is mostly a debate about a dot-to-dot googling puzzle, and I'm still at a loss as to why people bother debating with that type of logic.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
It's just the usual shot in the dark casual logic that pervades this thread.



Did you really mean to type dark casual logic or dark causal logic? Please clarify..
There are lots of examples of bad logic in this thread so to point them out is really redundant and not relevant.

The latest LRO pictures don't improve NASA's claims for landing 6 teams of 2 men on the moon and safely returning them to Earth between the years of 1969 & 1972. The most recent release of LRO pictures indicates an unwillingness to resolve the nagging questions...

Why does NASA crash so many probes on the moon?
Why hasn't any human being ever been beyond Earth orbit, excepting the years when Nixon was president between 1969-1972?
Why do the monkey torture tests seem to end in disaster?

We know that NASA is capable of displaying great precision in many scientific efforts however when it comes to taking pictures of Apollo landing sites... NASA is seemingly retarded. NASA fails to 'wow' us with Hi-Def pictures of any landing sites or artifacts remaining on the moon. This means to me that they are scientifically and technologically incapable, in the year 2011, of taking pictures from satellites orbitting the moon, of historical Apollo landings sites from 40 years ago. TECHNOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE.

It is no wonder then that NASA is joining forces with John Knoll, the co-creator of Photoshop, who has won Academy Awards for his computer effects in film, most recently James Cameron's Avatar, 2009.

Academy Award for Best Visual Effects
en.wikipedia.org...


jra

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Why does NASA crash so many probes on the moon?


It's not just NASA, so don't accuse them alone. The ESA, JAXA, Russia India and China have all crashed probes into the Moon as well. Just about every mission that has gone to the Moon, eventually ends in it crashing into it. From my understanding, it's because they generally don't have enough propellant to break Lunar orbit and with the uneven Lunar gravity, the orbits are unstable and they will eventually crash on their own. There have been a few missions that do leave the Moon, but they're more uncommon.


Why hasn't any human being ever been beyond Earth orbit, excepting the years when Nixon was president between 1969-1972?


Because there hasn't been a spaceship designed to leave Earth orbit since the Apollo missions. NASA hasn't had the money to develop a separate spaceship capable of leaving Earth orbit, while still funding and operating the space shuttle. But this is changing now with the development of the MPCV.


We know that NASA is capable of displaying great precision in many scientific efforts however when it comes to taking pictures of Apollo landing sites... NASA is seemingly retarded. NASA fails to 'wow' us with Hi-Def pictures of any landing sites or artifacts remaining on the moon.


Fails to wow you. I think the images are very good. I think some people just have unrealistic expectations.
edit on 14-9-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Why does NASA crash so many probes on the moon?


It's not just NASA, so don't accuse them alone. The ESA, JAXA, Russia India and China have all crashed probes into the Moon as well. Just about every mission that has gone to the Moon, eventually ends in it crashing into it. From my understanding, it's because they generally don't have enough propellant to break Lunar orbit and with the uneven Lunar gravity, the orbits are unstable and they will eventually crash on their own. There have been a few missions that do leave the Moon, but they're more uncommon.


It basically puts in doubt that any nation has the capabilities of landing craft on a foreign body and bringing it back. This includes the Soviets. Its strange that both the US and the USSR have only been able to perform such a feet in the 60-70's. And though there has been advancements in technology, such as propellents, lightweight materials, computers, etc, have not been factors in enabling these nations, or others, to replicate a feat 40 years earlier.


jra

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
It basically puts in doubt that any nation has the capabilities of landing craft on a foreign body and bringing it back.


How so? Because I wasn't talking about landers and sample return missions. I was only referring to orbiting probes. Obviously a sample return mission would be designed so that a part of it will be able to escape the Moon's gravity and return back to Earth. Orbiting probes don't have that requirement. It would be pointless to bring them back.


Its strange that both the US and the USSR have only been able to perform such a feet in the 60-70's.


Why is it strange? NASA already has some Lunar samples. There's not much of an incentive for them to spend more money to get something they already have.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
It was only 7 years from JFK's moon speech to the alleged Apollo 8 moon orbit with 3 astronauts.
Building and testing this "new" rocket will take twice as long.


By Ralph Vartabedian and W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times

September 14, 2011, 6:19 p.m.
After more than a year's delay, NASA on Wednesday unveiled its plan to build a heavy launch vehicle capable of sending astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit by 2025, but it would be only slightly more powerful than the 1960s-era Saturn V that launched Americans to the moon.


NASA officials have discussed a trip to circle the moon without landing. a trip to an asteroid and an eventual journey to Mars. But those discussions are far from a concrete plan with a well-defined schedule.

William H. Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for space operations, said that the rocket would make its first unmanned flight in 2017. The first launch would achieve only half of the intended lifting capacity of the system into low-Earth orbit, which is 130 metric tons.

By contrast, the Saturn system could send 119 metric tons to low-Earth orbit or 45 tons to the moon — which is about what the Apollo capsule, its service module and the lunar landing module weighed.

Other analysts were similarly unimpressed.
Marco A. Caceres, space analyst for the aerospace research firm Teal Group Corp. of Fairfax, Va., said there was little about the rocket to generate excitement.

"There's nothing new here," he said, comparing it to the Constellation program. "They're repackaging the same old product that was canceled because of cost overruns and a lack of a defined mission and trying to sell it to the taxpayer again."

Caceres said there was a lack of detail about the most difficult aspects of the exploration mission. Wednesday's announcement, he said, was simply a ruse to fill the void of the retired space shuttle fleet and a trick to make Americans feel as though they're in the space race again.

"NASA's not aiming to develop any cutting-edge technology here," he said. "This is a jobs program, pure and simple. A lot of engineers have lost their jobs. This program appears to address that."

Source www.latimes.com...



edit on 9/14/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: TAGS



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Jarrah White's latest video series Sep 1, 2011
RE: White Noise: Jarrah's Big Moon Hoaxer Shootout, Pt. 1. PART 1



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It was only 7 years from JFK's moon speech to the alleged Apollo 8 moon orbit with 3 astronauts.
Building and testing this "new" rocket will take twice as long.


And this is why its strange that anyone with the notion of sending men to the moon, or further, is not already practicing by sending return trip probes... not to mention ones that can actually land on various terrains. Now all we are seeing are 'one way ticket' missiles. You get the sense this trip to the moon is just way above their heads. Those engineers must be scratching their heads thinking.... "Gee... those dudes from the '60s were uber smart... they made it look so easy"




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I guess Cosmonauts ate more carrots than Astronauts



Some see stars, others dont.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The carrot idea was ww2 psy-ops, but because 'governments don't lie' you still have millions of believers in the theory.

And there are probably some who believe that the idea that carrots don't improve night vision is actually just German/Soviet whisper campaign propaganda designed to cause us to decrease our carrot intake. This would obviously give them an edge if we bought into their anti-carrot propaganda..


jra

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It was only 7 years from JFK's moon speech to the alleged Apollo 8 moon orbit with 3 astronauts.
Building and testing this "new" rocket will take twice as long.


NASA of the 60's was strongly focused on the Apollo program with a lot of its budget going towards it. NASA today has a smaller budget and it gets divided up between a lot of other projects and missions. Only a portion of NASA's budget is spent on the new rocket and capsule per year, so the development of the new hardware has to be spread out over many more years.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 


The carrot idea was ww2 psy-ops,






want moar info!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It was only 7 years from JFK's moon speech to the alleged Apollo 8 moon orbit with 3 astronauts.
Building and testing this "new" rocket will take twice as long.


NASA of the 60's was strongly focused on the Apollo program with a lot of its budget going towards it. NASA today has a smaller budget and it gets divided up between a lot of other projects and missions. Only a portion of NASA's budget is spent on the new rocket and capsule per year, so the development of the new hardware has to be spread out over many more years.


NASA today?
What about NASA in the mid to late 70's? 80's? 90's? Last 10 years?
All that time and we got wimpy probes and expensive shuttles.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Wimpy as in very well performing and cheap solutions. Meaning they do what they're designed for unless there is a malfunction or other disaster. Also shuttle program being expensive yeah sure but it is for the purpose of sending men to orbit and hang around there for sometime and taking them back home afterwards. Then to do the same again without having to build another shuttle.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
NASA Whistleblower: Alien Moon Cities Exist



Former National Aeronautics and Space Administration Data and Photo Control Department manager, Ken Johnston, who worked for the space agency's Lunar Receiving Laboratory during the Apollo missions has been fired for telling the truth.

Johnston asserts NASA knows astronauts discovered ancient alien cities and the remains of amazingly advanced machinery on the Moon. Some of the technology can manipulate gravity.

He says the agency ordered a cover-up and forced him to participate in it.



Oh NASA



How does one explain this?



edit on 15-9-2011 by FoosM because: ______beforeitsnews/story/1091/566/NASA_Whistleblower:_Alien_Moon_Cities_Exist.html



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Clearly it is proof they did go to the moon!


Glad you finally came to yor sense!

Either that or Johnston is a fraud - for example in this ATS thread www.abovetopsecret.com... he's saying that the moon mission was a fak - but you've jsut noted that he says the astronauts found cities - can't be both can it??


And in this ATS thread www.abovetopsecret.com... it is noted that his announcement of hte cities coincided with release of a book by him, and that so-called "reveal all" press conference turned out to be a book release.........hm.....what's that about follow the money??

I like this article - another hoax is born


edit on 15-9-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 


The carrot idea was ww2 psy-ops,






want moar info!



You could try searching - it's an old tale!!

When the British started getting a few kills with their early radar in night fighters they put about a story that they were feeding the pilots carrots to improve their night vision - carrots being high in beta-caratine - which is metabolised into vitamin A which essential for good eyesight - lack of it can cause blindness, which can be cured by putting it back into your diet - wiki article.

the story gained currency with the civilian population too - since blackouts were common and better night vision would help navigating the cities at night - so carrot consumption soared!!

it's an old story - one I knew as an Air Training Corps cadet in the early 1970's - something that should have been trivial to find



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Foosm, have you seen the replica lunar lander at the NASM? (National Air & Space Museum)
www.visitingdc.com...

I'd post the pic but not in a position to do that right now. Look at the lander, does it look actual size? And look at the size of the astronauts, don't they appear to be actual size?


Originally found this on www.davesweb.cnchost.com...


A replica of the lunar lander is on display at the National Air and Space Museum.

The lunar landers - officially called lunar modules - were designed to fly only in the vacuum of space. They did not have to be streamlined like an aircraft or carry a heat shield for protection during reentry.

Once a lunar lander was launched into space, it could not return to Earth.

Lunar lander had two stages:

Silver-and-black ascent stage with the crew's pressurized compartment and cluster of rockets that controlled spacecraft.

Gold-and-black descent stage, like the ascent stage, contained a rocket engine and tanks of fuel and oxidizer.
Lunar lander specifications:

Weight: Empty: 8,650 pounds
Crew & Propellant: 32,500 pounds
Height: 22 feet, 11 inches
Width: 31 feet





posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   


NASA officials have discussed a trip to circle the moon without landing.


Hmm, isn't that strange?

Maybe they don't want people to see how hard it would be to land people on another body,
or is it that they don't want people to ask them to go to the alleged Apollo landing sites?




top topics



 
377
<< 569  570  571    573  574  575 >>

log in

join